oberinfandomcom-20200215-history
Category talk:Player
Jedd, I don't want to edit this page myself with info that might be too confusing, but I think something like this will have to be written at some point: "Some old Player-Characters have become Quest Characters in time. Those will be found in the Quest Character page. The same applies to old PCs from previous versions of Oberin, from when the storylines were so intertwined with players' actions that a distinction is hard to make from an external point of view. None of those, however, is an active PC anymore." I know there aren't that many cases where it applies, but there are enough...Cassandrawiz (talk) 13:23, August 11, 2012 (UTC) Yeah I've been thinking about this. I hope I didn't change too many words ;) -Jedd the Fighter (talk) 16:23, August 11, 2012 (UTC) Sorry if I'm intruding on this, but I just read the intro on this page, and it reads to me like it's saying none of the people on this page are active PC's anymore. I think perhaps describing the rare instances of PC's-turned-Qchars should not be done on the page for PC bios? Or else I think it may work if the "Note:" line was removed. Just a thought... RogueShayde (talk) 15:36, August 17, 2012 (UTC) Yeah, it's a hard one to phrase. There aren't many PCs converted into Qchars (Amalphus Vei would be one of the few). The main problem are the characters from older versions of Oberin (closed beta, etc). In most cases, I really have no idea whether they were PCs or GMs and, from our point of view, the difference feels very little, given how important they were to the plots. That's why in the lore blog, for example, I've opted for not distinguishing PCs from Qchars at all, assuming that a character is a character, with the same status IC-wise. Here the distinction was already made ages ago. I'm still not convinced by it, but understand why it might make things clearer for people who will play along an RTQ, but don't like role-playing with other PCs or for PCs who are notable for aspects other than role-playing... 16:35, August 17, 2012 (UTC) For some reason, I was logged off. The previous comment is mine, of course. Cassandrawiz (talk) 16:37, August 17, 2012 (UTC) Feel free to change it. There's a timeout for staying logged in, so if you sit on one page for too long you will get automatically logged out. That always happens to me on large edits unless I remember to log in on a new tab. -Jedd the Fighter (talk) 00:24, August 18, 2012 (UTC) Here's a proposed modification - feel free to edit it of course: All characters listed here are Player Characters (PCs). Some are current and some are historically significant. At times it can be hard to distinguish between the Players and the Quest Characters, and there have been some instances where a PC has become a Q-Char, however this is very rare. For articles and information on Quest Characters, please see the Quest Character page. RogueShayde (talk) 01:12, August 18, 2012 (UTC) Class Categories? What would you think about giving each player a category, that represents his class? Claire would be in the category cleric, Cass in the category wizard etcetc. Then maybe at the bottom of the class description pages we could have a list with players that are members of the class? Maybe like that we could make that list of "notable" players obsolete *coughcough* C.N.Z. (talk) 22:57, December 8, 2012 (UTC) Personally I feel like the Player category would be a lot more simple than having 6 class categories. I can see this Player category becoming overcrowded, so maybe 6 categories would be more desirable if we have a page for every player that has roleplayed at least once in their life. Right now we don't have too many people with their own articles, and a category page such as this one can only list things that have their own article. For instance, you could include Zappho in the Player Category, but you couldn't include Gilden in the Player Category, because there isn't an article for Gilden. As we write more articles about players, having class categories would become more effective. As for the notable player problem, I really like that suggestion. Heck, all we have to do is create the sections on each class page, transfer the names over, and the list of notable players is good to delete! -Jedd the Fighter (talk) 23:47, December 8, 2012 (UTC) I actually didn't mean to abolish the player category, I was thinking of sub categories such as in the Item category. I can see that there is a problem with missing player descriptions, but there could always be one sentence placeholders, so that noone who is currently on the notable player list is left out. C.N.Z. (talk) 00:05, December 9, 2012 (UTC) Oh ok. Everything sounds great to me. It could be something as simple as "So and so is a Rogue". -Jedd the Fighter (talk) 02:50, December 9, 2012 (UTC) Alright one more thing. There really doesn't need to be any players in the Player category, as they all have to have a class, right? I'm moving myself from here to Fighter, but I'm not really sure who else might be in the Player category but not in their respective Class category. Guess I'll find out. -Jedd the Fighter (talk) 14:43, December 10, 2012 (UTC) It's possible that I missed the odd person, since it was quite a mechanic task, but there shouldn't be too many. Glad you caught that one :) C.N.Z. (talk) 21:03, December 10, 2012 (UTC) Oh wait, unless you meant you *removed* the Player category. That I attributed to everyone. Because..I guess because that's where they were in before... C.N.Z. (talk) 21:04, December 10, 2012 (UTC) Sorry, I keep adding stuff here.. But, let's take the Item category, for instance, things that are in that category are in one of the subcategories too, without a problem (eg Batwing - Item and Enchanting). C.N.Z. (talk) 00:19, December 11, 2012 (UTC) That bit with the items is something I meant to clean up like three years ago >.> It's just a bit redundant to have an article in one category and then have the same article in the mother category. Ideally, there shouldn't be anyone directly under the Player category. Later tonight I'll have time and I'll show you what I mean. -Jedd the Fighter (talk) 01:26, December 11, 2012 (UTC) I actually think it makes a lot of sense: Let's take me for example. I would consider myself to be in the category "Humans", Humans can be subcategorized into "Female" and "Male" (and whatever in between you would like, that's not the point here), but being in the category "Female" doesn't remove me from the category "Human", does it? C.N.Z. (talk) 01:49, December 11, 2012 (UTC) Right, but if another human wanted to know more about you, saying that you were either female or male would tell them a heck of a lot more than saying that you were a human. That analogy aside, it's more of a tidiness thing. Being in a subcategory makes you a member of the parent category, and there's no need to list every parent category the page belongs to. It's much easier and simpler to follow if one page belongs to one category, and not the parent as well. You might as well say that, all of these players are also articles, so why not place them directly inside the Article category as well, and then Glossary? Doing so ruins the purpose of even having categories. This goes for players, food, and all those other categories as well. Now there are bound to be some exceptions, of course, for when an item belongs in a category but cannot be subcategorized any further. Take almost every thing under the category "Beast", for example. That category has only one subcategory, "Poison Beast", and all those articles that are filed under the category "Beast" probably don't belong in "Poison Beast". I don't really like that example though; I've never liked how the Poison Beast category even exists. But that's aside the point. Hopefully you see what I'm getting at. -Jedd the Fighter (talk) 03:05, December 11, 2012 (UTC) I totally get what you mean. And you're right, that not everything needs to be in every class it belongs to one way or another. It's funny though, because my reaction was opposite to yours, so I will just try to give some reasons, why I think in the Player-Class and the Item-subcategory case, I think it might be worth giving members both tags. Let's say I'm looking for an Item and I forgot its name and which subcategory it belongs to, or I'm looking for a player whose name I only have remember and I don't know whether he is a fighter or a ranger. Can happen! I have the option to go to the player page, to look at it, and see a list of all players, hopefully finding the one I'm lookin for. Same for the item. Or maybe I just want to cruise through all the Items that exist in Oberin and check out the ones I think are cool. On the Item page that would be possible. Also, taking away the Tags, would in both cases make the Player and the Item page very sad pages (awww). Empty Pages I mean. :) Also, since the listing of the members of the category is at the very bottom of the page, you don't even need to look at them. You have the choice, whether you want to cruise straight throught the subcategories or the category itself. I guess I am trying to tackle your tidiness argument here a bit. In this case, and because both the Player and the Item category are on the entrance page, I would actually find it tidy the other way around. :P I could make funny plays and invent situations when it is more important to know that I'm human, and aliens, that might not know that females are humans and bla, but it was really just a little explanation for why I don't see a *real* problem. Sorry, I blame my education for trying to argue, instead of just giving in, but maybe you can see some contra-arguments that you like! :) C.N.Z. (talk) 03:54, December 11, 2012 (UTC) *half know the name Haha yes we do seem to be viewing this from opposite perspectives. Well, I've always been more fond of the search bar, but I see how categories could help someone search something up. I tend to see them more of an organizational feature that most of the users of the wiki ignore, but I could very well be wrong. And I now see that "tidiness" is a subjective concept. :P As such the only option I have here is to drop that argument all together. And that leaves me with this: :The way I see it, pages in the parent category should be those that don't fit into any of the subcategories. The Item category has several subcategories, such as Food, but pages that don't really belong in any of the subcategories will go directly under the Item category (Such as items that are used in Cooking but can't be eaten: Flour, Trout, etc). Now, for the Player category, all the players will inevitably belong to one of the six subcategories. As such, the Player category would be a sad empty page, but the Item category probably wouldn't. The Player category is just one of those categories where all the relevant pages can go under a subcategory. :But, this approach assumes that no one will use the categories as a search method as you suggested above. So, I can concede to letting the players keep their Player tag as well as their Class tag. If this is how it will be, though, then all of the players will need to get a Player tag, or else the mode of searching you explained wouldn't work. :So the Item category won't be a sad category, but I'm still not completely convinced that all the items should get item tags in addition to their subcategory tags :P -Jedd the Fighter (talk) :Aaaand just realized you already placed all the players into the Player category. Disregard my third paragraph! -Jedd the Fighter (talk) 05:05, December 11, 2012 (UTC) I will try and restrain the urge then to give all Items the item tag then. And I am glad that I haven't done so on impulse yesterday, when I felt like this was something that needed to be done. C.N.Z. (talk) 08:23, December 11, 2012 (UTC) And Back to the topic of this talk page... don't you think the player page doesn't look too bad this way? :P C.N.Z. (talk) 08:24, December 11, 2012 (UTC) I suppose it's nice to have a complete alphabetical list of players somewhere around here ;) -Jedd the Fighter (talk) 14:49, December 11, 2012 (UTC) So, how are we to do it? I don't mind either way, I just want to know. :) Cassandrawiz (talk) 14:57, December 11, 2012 (UTC) From what I understand, all players will go inside both the Player and Class categories. I'm pretty sure Charonia already did all this. As for items: those that belong under a subcategory of Items will have the tag of the subcategory only, and items that don't fit into any of the subcategories will go under the category "Item". For example, Dried Trout would belong to the Food subcategory, but a normal Trout or a Bag of Flour (inedible items) would belong to the Item category. -Jedd the Fighter (talk) 23:25, December 11, 2012 (UTC) Ha! I'm more obsessed than you! I then MV chests, trout and flour go under "raw materials". Same as logs, ferrite, rolls of cloth (even if in different chests: food and crafting). ;) Cassandrawiz (talk) 10:22, December 12, 2012 (UTC) But you can feed Trout to Tuskers! C.N.Z. (talk) 21:14, December 12, 2012 (UTC) When I ordered the chests, I put Trout in the Food Chest, because it's the chest everyone can go to, whenever he feels like cooking. Just to make things more confusing. :P C.N.Z. (talk) 21:16, December 12, 2012 (UTC)